Talk:German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Discuss desired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article

Contents 1 russia 2 bad link 3 proposed move 4 Bad Link 5 Pictures of model 6 KMS Graf Zeppelin? 7 It was Germany's only aircraft carrier during World War II 8 Conflicting theories for Graf's doom? 9 She / It 10 fate

[edit] russia

The link to the photo of the carrier being towed to Russia doesn't work - comes up with "You are not authorised to view this" or words to that effect.

I am not sure any more whether it is credible that the Soviets towed the carrier from Swinoujscie to Leningrad and then back before sinking it. Would it really have made sense for them to take this gigantic ship without any power of its own on such a long round trip around the Baltic? Some other sources I am reading simply claim that the ship was found by the Soviets scuttled in Swinoujscie, raised, towed out into the Baltic and expended in weapons tests, without ever going to Leningrad. Does anyone have any solid information to clarify this point? Balcer 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This story can lead to an interesting development. [1]

A summary of the Ullrich H. J. Israel book Graf Zeppelin (see References) omits the round trip to Leningrad, only a tow to off the Bay of Danzig (Gdansk). This summary also describes a different end and date. The carrier was used as target in Soviet bombing exercises; then the drifting ship had to be towed further out to sea. In deteriorating weather the tow lines were cut and the ship was sunk with two torpedoes on 18 June 1947.--Gamahler 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bad link

The reference to Allied Tripartite Commission is a bad link. No such article exists.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

[edit] proposed move

Shouldn't this be at Graf Zeppelin (aircraft carrier)? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia convention for aircraft carriers from countries without prefixes. See, for instance, Category:World War II aircraft carriers of Japan. I don't remember why. You may want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships Rmhermen 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would make more since to move it. I mean this would be a unique instance, cause this is the only time I've seen wikipedia articles titled like this. 74.137.230.39 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to a move. It is against convention. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for me, although I do think per other naming convention standards it would be more appropriate to use "Name", "Name (aircraft carrier)", "Name (country aircraft carrier)", and I don't think we'd need to go further since we could use whatever convention is used to tell them apart outside Wikipedia. Unless this conversation has been had elsewhere (as is sometimes the case when agreed-upon conventions seem unnecessary to the uninformed), in which case the status quo is fine; either way, it's a conversation to be had elsewhere IMO. Moulder 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Link

Please notice that when the picture link is clicked on, it comes up with a disgusting photo of something that could be considered pornographic at best. Please remove it immediately. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.23.90.6 (talk • contribs) .

A user by the name of User:MooCowz69 has been persistantly uploading vulgar images to the original image Image:Graf zeppelin flugzeugtraeger modell 04.jpg. Because the image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, page protection on Wikipedia does nothing to stop this vandalism. I've temporarily uploaded the image to Wikipedia as Image:Graf zeppelin temp.jpg, which has been semiprotected against further vandalism. -Loren 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of model

Where is the model located, and who created it? The photograph of the model may be licensed under the GFDL, but it's a derivative work of the model it depicts, which is likely copyrighted. Postdlf 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the owner and creator of the model should be credited but is the model not a derivative of the ship?Wonnkabe 20:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the model is a derivative of the ship. I doubt that the ship itself is copyrightable (all function, no "expression"), but it requires some creative choices to translate anything into a model, so the model itself would be independently copyrightable even if the ship it depicts is not. The problem goes beyond mere credit; if the model is copyrighted, without a fair use rationale (and I can't think of one) we simply wouldn't be able to use the photos, regardless of whether we give credit. Postdlf 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KMS Graf Zeppelin?

According to the Times of London, it's referred to as the KMS Graf Zeppelin... is that correct? Shouldn't we rename the article then? (Like HMS Ark Royal or USS Hornet)

Searches for KMS Graf Zeppelin do yield considerable results, but I'm wondering if there was a conversation elsewhere about this, because on the German Wikipedia, it's "Graf Zeppelin (Schiff)" (Ship). Anyone know what the deal is? Moulder 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do know that during the Kaiserreich the ships were named with the prefix SMS, meaning Seiner Majestät Schiff (His Majesty Ship), like SMS Graf Spee. - However, I don't know if such custom existed during the Nazi period as well (and what the prefix was, if any). KMS could stand for Kriegsmarineschiff (see Kriegsmarine). MikeZ 07:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No KMS prefix in the german navy during that time. Several websites use KMS to separate ships of different periods with the same name like Graf Spee. --Denniss 15:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki MoS is nationality/ship type/ship name for cases like this, see German battleship Bismarck GraemeLeggett 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Then a whole bunch of articles need to be renamed, like HMS Ark Royal or USS Hornet ... MikeZ 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the case where there isn't a known unambigious form - see the MoS on ship naming. With several ships that have the same name, like HMS Ark Royal, the pennant number is also there to disambig. GraemeLeggett 08:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It was Germany's only aircraft carrier during World War II

Except it never was an aircraft carrier. It was going to be, but it didn't make it. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because it was never put to active duty doesn't mean it wasn't an aircraft carrier. Not sure I'm getting your point. The USS Missouri is no longer in active duty - does that mean it's not a battleship? Please give a little more detail on what you're proposing.

Since the rest of the intro makes it pretty clear: "It was launched on 8 December 1938, but was never completed, never commissioned, and never saw action.", its hard for me to see why this is an issue. Warthog32 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Missouri is just mothballed, but basically complete? If so, I'd argue that it is an inactive battleship, which is a type of battleship. If it had never been completed, I'd argue that it wasn't a battleship. If it for eg no longer had its main guns, I'd argue that it was an ex-battleship, which is not a type a battleship. I don't know what would be a better intro. I just don't like the sentance because it strikes me as misleading, even if the rest of the intro makes the true situation clear. (For a while, that sentance was on the main page, without all the explanatory bits.) Regards, Ben Aveling 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting theories for Graf's doom?

According to the recent BBC article (the third reference) there is still disagreement as to how the carrier finally met its end:

'There are conflicting theories about how it was sunk. Some experts believe the Germans scuttled it in Szczecin (Stettin) in April 1945, just before the Soviet Army captured the city. Others say the Soviet navy used the ship for target practice and sank it as part of a training exercise in 1947. '

The current version of the wiki article seems to focus on the soviet explanation - are we missing information, or is the BBC article simply confused (since really, according to the soviet theory, the ship was both scuttled by the germans, and sunk by the soviets (after they refloated it). Anyone have any more references - I'm happy to do the editing if someone has some background material. Warthog32 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] She / It

Is refering to ships as females grammatically correct? (I realize that use of she for ships is widespread, but is it correct for Wikipedia?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.207.204 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 August 2006 (CDT).

Yes, it is correct for Wikipedia. "She" is used throughout Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships -- see [2], for example. --Mareklug ^talk 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fate

The fate of the ship is not clear. It is possible that it sunk during a storm, while being transported to USSR, it is possible that it was sunk by the soviets due to some problems with transportation. It is doubtful but still possible that it was used for ordinary target practice.

The fate is clear, it was sunk as target ship. It was not just an ordinary target ship, they tried to simulate an aircraft carrier attack. They thought it might be of use in the now starting cold war as the US had lots of carriers. --Denniss 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)